Assessing the true effect of active antidepressant therapy v. placebo in major depressive disorder: use of a mixture model
|
|
- Geoffrey Phelps
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The British Journal of Psychiatry (2011) 199, doi: /bjp.bp Assessing the true effect of active antidepressant therapy v. placebo in major depressive disorder: use of a mixture model Michael E. Thase, Klaus G. Larsen and Sidney H. Kennedy Background There is controversy about the implications of relatively small average drugplacebo differences observed in randomised controlled trials of antidepressant medications. Aims To investigate whether efficacy is better understood as a large effect in a subgroup of patients. Method The mixture model was used to identify patient subgroups (patients benefiting or not benefiting from treatment) to directly model the skewness of MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at week 8. Results The s improved by 15.9 points (95% CI ) among patients who benefited from treatment. The proportion of patients who benefited from escitalopram and not from placebo treatment was 19.5%, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 5. Conclusions This model gave a considerably better fit to the data than the analysis of covariance model in which all patients were assumed to benefit from treatment. The small average antidepressantplacebo difference obscures a much larger effect in a clinically meaningful subgroup of patients. Declaration of interest M.E.T. is an advisor/consultant for H. Lundbeck A/S. During the past 5 years has been advisor/consultant for, and/or received research funding and/or honoraria for talks from: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Aldolor, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cephalon, Cyberonics, Dey Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories (including PGx), GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, MedAvante, Merck (including Organon and Schering-Plough), National Institute of Mental Health, Neuronetics, Novartis, Otsuka, PamLab, Pfizer (including Wyeth), Rexahn, Sanofi Aventis, Sepracor, Shire US, Takeda and Transcept. He has equity holdings in MedAvante and has received income from royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Guilford Publications and Herald House. S.H.K has received grant funding and consulting honoraria from H. Lundbeck A/S. In the past 5 years he has also received grant funding or consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biovail, Boehringer- Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Ortho, Merck- Frosst, Organon, Pfizer, Servier and St Jude Medical. K.G.L. is an employee of H. Lundbeck A/S. It has been proposed that a small mean difference can be magnified when continuous data are transformed to categorical data (e.g. response or remission). 1 This apparent discrepancy between continuous and response/remission measures implies that the rating scale scores are not normally distributed, which is a violation of the assumptions underlying the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Hence, it is also an indication that not all patients benefit from the intervention. This issue has important implications with respect to understanding the clinical significance of antidepressant medications, as some have argued that the small mean differences in symptom scores (compared with placebo) observed in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of newer generation antidepressants indicate that the utility of these treatments falls below the threshold of clinical significance for all but the most severely depressed patients. 24 There are various ways in which continuous parameters, such as total scores on a depression rating scale, can change as a result of an intervention. For example, one intervention can move the whole distribution, indicating an improvement for all patients, whereas another intervention might improve scores in only some patients. These different patterns of improvement can result in the same mean change in the study population. Although data can be analysed using ANCOVA, assuming that all patients benefit from the intervention in terms of improvement on a rating scale, models that address the latter pattern of improvement have not been explored using data from RCTs of antidepressants. The analysis reported here was undertaken to determine whether it is possible to distinguish between these two patterns by pooling data from a comprehensive data-set of placebo-controlled RCTs in major depressive disorder. Specifically, we aimed to determine whether the distribution of post-treatment scores shifts laterally from baseline to the end of treatment or, conversely, whether the shape of the distribution changes. Thus, we applied the mixture model, which includes the ANCOVA as a special case, in an attempt to improve the description of the observed score distribution while preserving a relatively simple interpretation of the effect of the intervention. Method Data were pooled from all five of the trials of escitalopram sponsored by Forest and Lundbeck. 59 These were randomised placebo-controlled trials in which it was possible to receive escitalopram at a dose of 20 mg per day (Table 1). Khan et al have shown that antidepressantplacebo differences are greater in patients with severe depression than in those with moderate depression, 10,11 and Bech et al have demonstrated that 20 mg is a more effective daily dose of escitalopram than 10 mg for treatment of patients with severe depression, 12 defined as those with a baseline score of 30 or above on the MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). 13 Thus, in order to have as large a signal-to-noise ratio as possible, only patients with a baseline of 30 or over were included in the initial 501
2 Thase et al Table 1 Summary data for studies included in pooled analysis Study Duration weeks Dose mg/day All patients n Patients with severe MDD a n Mean age years Lepola et al Placebo Escitalopram 1020 Citalopram 2040 Burke et al Placebo Escitalopram 10 b Escitalopram 20 Citalopram 40 Rapaport et al Placebo Escitalopram 1020 Citalopram 2040 Ninan et al Placebo Escitalopram 1020 Alexopoulos et al Placebo Escitalopram 1020 Sertraline Total Placebo 681 Escitalopram Placebo 332 Escitalopram MDD, major depressive disorder. a. Baseline score on the MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale 530. b. These patients are not included in the analyses since escitalopram 10 mg/day has not shown any robust effect in patients with severe depression. analyses. After validating the analyses in the more severe subset, analyses were repeated for the overall study group, as well as the subset with less severe depression. Details of the individual studies have been published elsewhere; 59 no unpublished study was excluded. Analyses are based on the full-analysis set, comprising all patients who took at least one dose of study medication, and had at least one valid postbaseline MADRS assessment. Data are from week 8, using the method of last observation carried forward (LOCF). Although we are aware of the limitations of this conservative approach to account for the data of participants who drop out of the study (see, for example, papers by Lavori and Mallinckrodt et al), 14,15 we used LOCF because it was used in several of the meta-analyses that support the contention that antidepressants have small effects. 24 Remission was defined as a of 410 or 412 and response as a 50% or greater decrease from baseline in MADRS total score. Statistical analysis The mixture model, a parametric, group-based approach, 16 was used to identify patient subgroups and to directly model the skewness of the observed s at week 8. By using a mixture of probability distributions that are suitably specified to describe the data, this modelling strategy explicitly recognises uncertainty in group membership and assumes no single factor as necessary and sufficient in determining group membership. 17 It was assumed that both treatment groups (placebo or escitalopram) consisted of two subgroups (i.e. two latent classes, 18 or mixture components): one comprising patients who benefited from treatment and the other comprising patients who did not. The at week 8 was assumed to be normally distributed within each of the subgroups regardless of treatment group. Hence, the distribution of the scores among patients who benefit from the treatment was assumed to be the same for the two treatment groups and the same assumption was made for patients who did not benefit. So, a difference in the distribution of s at week 8 between treatment groups would be attributed to different proportions of patients benefiting from the treatment, rather than a shift in a single distribution as in the ANCOVA model. This leads to three types of patients: those who benefit from either of the treatments (placebo benefiters), those who benefit from neither treatment (escitalopram nonbenefiters) and those who benefit from escitalopram but not placebo. It is noted that the case with no placebo benefiters, no escitalopram non-benefiters and equal variance in the benefiter and non-benefiter groups is identical to the standard ANCOVA. In this sense, the mixture model is a generalisation of the ANCOVA. It is not directly known to which subgroup each specific patient belongs, and class assignment is done implicitly during the estimation of the parameters of the model, although individual probabilities of the likelihood of a patient belonging to the benefiter group can be obtained. Our focus here is on finding a model that fits the data better than the ANCOVA, while keeping an intuitive clinical interpretation of the treatment effect. To this end, the mixture model allows for a flexible shape of the distribution of the observed s at week 8, including bimodal or just skewed distributions. Based on the above assumptions, the model for the at week 8 (MADRS W8 ) included the effect (b) of the baseline (MADRS BL ) and an intercept (a STUDY ), which varied between the five studies: MADRS W8 = a STUDY + b MADRS BL + l GROUP + e where GROUP is a dichotomous latent class variable taking the value 0 for patients who benefit from treatment and 1 for patients who do not benefit from treatment, and l is the mean difference in the at week 8 between non-benefiters and benefiters (which is the same for both treatment groups). The last term (e) is the error, which is assumed to be normally distributed with a mean of zero and a variance that differs between benefiters and non-benefiters; in other words, the populations of benefiters and non-benefiters are assumed to be normally distributed with a variance of s 0 2 and s 1 2 respectively. The effect of treatment (placebo or escitalopram) enters the equation indirectly, as the probability of a patient being in group 0 (the benefiter group) depends on treatment. Thus, the difference in mean MADRS score at week 8 between treatment groups is due to different proportions of benefiters in the two treatment groups. All parameters including l, s 0 2 and s 1 2 were estimated jointly by the maximum likelihood principle using a program written in R ( Although the ANCOVA model is 502
3 True effect of antidepressant therapy statistically nested within the mixture model (the ANCOVA is obtained from the mixture model by restricting the probabilities of being a benefiter to 1 in the escitalopram group and 0 in the placebo group and setting s 2 0 equal to s 2 1 ), a formal test comparing these models is not possible, and Akaike s information criterion was used instead. 19 The primary criterion for judging the fit of the model was the fit to the observed distribution of MADRS scores observed at week 8. The predictions of the observed response and remission rates were compared between the ANCOVA and mixture model to investigate whether the mixture model is a substantial improvement. Results There was no significant difference between treatment groups at baseline (Table 2). For all patients (n = 1357) the mean baseline MADRS total score was 29.6 (s.d. = 4.5), the mean age was 41 (s.d. = 12) years and 61.5% of patients were women. Using a median split, patients with s below 30 were classified as less severely depressed and those scoring 30 or higher were classified as more severely depressed. Among the subset with more severe depression, 335 patients were treated with escitalopram and 332 with placebo. Conventional analyses For all patients (n = 1357) the observed mean treatment difference (escitalopram v. placebo) from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment (LOCF) was 3.2 (s.d. = 9.5) MADRS points (Table 3), with observed response rates of 53.8% (escitalopram) and 36.9% (placebo), and remission rates (MADRS412) of 44.5% (escitalopram) and 32.2% (placebo) (Table 4). These values correspond to number-needed-to-treat (NNT) values of 6 for response and 8 for remission. For more severely depressed patients (MADRS530, n = 667) estimated MADRS means at last visit were 16.8 (s.d. = 10.5) for escitalopram treatment and 21.5 (s.d. = 10.9) for placebo, with an estimated mean treatment difference from baseline of 4.7 (s.d. = 10.7) (see Table 3). Response rates were 54.3% (escitalopram) and 33.4% (placebo), and remission rates (MADRS412) were 38.5% (escitalopram) and 25.3% (placebo) (Table 4). These values correspond to an NNT of 5 (100/20.9) for response and 8 (100/13.2) for remission. Corresponding values for the less severely depressed patients are also shown in Tables 3 and 4. Mixture model v. ANCOVA The distributions of MADRS total scores (LOCF) after 8 weeks of treatment with escitalopram or placebo are shown in Fig. 1. Table 2 Patient characteristics at baseline Less severe depression a More severe depression b Escitalopram Placebo Escitalopram Placebo Patients treated, n Gender: female, n Age, years: Mean (s.d.) 40.9 (12.0) 41.5 (12.1) 39.7 (11.1) 40.5 (11.6) Range years, n : mean (s.d.) 25.9 (2.3) 26.1 (2.3) 33.1 (2.6) 33.4 (3.2) MADRS, MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale. a. Baseline 530. b. Baseline 530. Table 3 Treatment effect and participants benefiting from treatment at week 8 Less severe depression a (n = 690) More severe depression b (n = 667) All patients (n = 1357) Observed Mean treatment effect (MADRS) c ANCOVA Mean treatment effect (MADRS) c Standard deviation (placebo and escitalopram) Variance explained (adjusted R), % Mixture model Mean treatment effect (MADRS) c Standard deviation (placebo) d Standard deviation (escitalopram) d Variance explained (placebo), % Variance explained (escitalopram), % Patients benefiting from placebo, % Patients not benefiting from escitalopram, % Patients benefiting from escitalopram but not placebo, % Number needed to treat Treatment effect for benefiters e Standard deviation (benefiters) f Standard deviation (non-benefiters) f ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; MADRS, MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale. a. Baseline 530. b. Baseline 430. c. Escitalopram minus placebo (mean MADRS points). d. Residual error standard deviation. e. Mean MADRS change from baseline. f. Standard deviation of MADRS total scores at week
4 Thase et al Table 4 Response and remission rates Remission, % Response, % MADRS 410 MADRS 412 Placebo Escitalopram Placebo Escitalopram Placebo Escitalopram All patients Observed ANCOVA Mixture model Less severe depression a Observed ANCOVA Mixture model More severe depression b Observed ANCOVA Mixture model ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; MADRS, MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale. a. Baseline 530. b. Baseline 530. Inspection of the six graphs shows that the mixture model substantially improves the fit of the histograms compared with the ANCOVA, which assumes just one bell-shaped curve. Akaike s information criterion strongly supported this in the entire population (a difference of points in favour of the mixture model) as well as in both subgroups (differences of points in severe depression and points in moderate depression). Whereas the ANCOVA model explains about 6% of the variance, the mixing component of the mixture model accounts for about 60% (see Table 3). A bimodal distribution of outcomes is evident in five of the six panels, with the curve on the left capturing patients who benefited from treatment ( responders, characterised by low s at week 8), whereas that on the right captures patients who did not benefit from treatment ( non-responders, characterised by high s at week 8). Distribution of s at week 8 All patients The distribution of MADRS total scores after 8 weeks of treatment is shown for all patients in Fig. 1(a,b). The treatment difference for those who benefited was 15.9 (95% CI ) MADRS points (Table 3). The mean s decreased from approximately 30 at baseline to approximately 10 at week 8 for patients benefiting from treatment (whether treated with placebo or escitalopram) and to approximately 25 at week 8 for patients who did not benefit from treatment. The proportion of patients who benefited from placebo was 39.2%, whereas 41.7% of patients did not benefit from treatment with escitalopram (see Table 3). The difference in proportions of patients who benefited from escitalopram v. placebo treatment (58.3%739.2%) was 19.1% (95% CI ; P50.001). The mean treatment difference was therefore 3.0 MADRS points (19.2% of 15.9 points) and the NNT was 5 (100/19.2). Among those who did not benefit from treatment was a small group of patients whose scores increased. Specifically, depression worsened in 6.3% (n = 43) of patients given escitalopram and 10.3% (n = 70) of patients given placebo. Less severely depressed patients For patients with less severe depression at baseline, the distribution of MADRS total scores after 8 weeks of treatment is shown in Fig. 1(c,d). The mean scores decreased from approximately 26 at baseline to approximately 9 at week 8 for patients benefiting from treatment (whether treated with escitalopram or placebo) and to 22 at week 8 for patients who did not benefit from treatment. The treatment difference for those who benefited was 13.9 (95% CI ; P50.001) MADRS points (see Table 3). The proportion of patients who benefited from placebo was 36.6%, whereas the proportion of patients who benefited fromescitalopramwas50.2%.thus,theabsolutedifferencewas 13.6% (95% CI ), with a mean treatment difference of 1.9 MADRS points (13.6% of 13.9 points) and an NNT of 7 (100/ 13.6). Depression became worse in 8.8% (n = 30) of escitalopramtreated patients and in 10.3% (n = 36) of placebo-treated patients. More severely depressed patients For patients with more severe depression at baseline, the distribution of MADRS total scores after 8 weeks of treatment is shown in Fig. 1(e,f). The mean scores decreased from approximately 33 at baseline to approximately 10 at week 8 for patients benefiting from treatment (either escitalopram or placebo) and to approximately 27 at week 8 for patients who did not benefit from treatment. The treatment difference for those who benefited was 17.8 (95% CI ) MADRS points (see Table 3). A higher percentage of patients treated with escitalopram benefited compared with those receiving placebo (difference 23.2%, P50.001). Patients who benefited from placebo treatment (35.2%) could be regarded as patients who would benefit regardless of treatment (i.e. the easiest to treat). Patients who did not benefit from escitalopram treatment (41.6%) could likewise be regarded as those who are more difficult to treat (i.e. they would also not have responded to placebo). The difference in the proportions of patients benefiting from escitalopram (58.4%) v. placebo (35.2%) was 23.2% (95% CI ). The estimated mean treatment difference was therefore 4.1 MADRS points (23.2% of 17.8 points) and the NNT was 5 (100/23.2). Depression became worse in 3.9% (n = 13) of escitalopram-treated patients and in 10.2% (n = 34) of placebo-treated patients. To test the robustness of the mixture model, it was applied to a single study in elderly depressed patients in which the treatment difference between escitalopram (n = 170) and placebo (n = 180) of 0.03 MADRS points was not statistically significant. 20 The treatment effect of 11.9 (s.d. = 4.7) MADRS points for participants who benefited was similar to that found for moderately depressed patients in the pooled analyses (13.9, s.d. = 4.6; see Table 3). The predicted benefiter rates were 33.9% for escitalopram and 30.8% for placebo, with a non-significant difference of 3.1% (P = 0.85). 504
5 True effect of antidepressant therapy (a) 4 (b) 4 (c) (e) Patients, % Patients, % Patients, % (d) (f) Patients, % Patients, % Patients, % Fig. 1 Distribution of MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores at week 8 (last observation carried forward); (a) all patients treated with placebo (n = 681); (b) all patients treated with 1020 mg/day escitalopram (n = 676); (c) patients with less severe depression (baseline 530) treated with placebo (n = 349); (d) patients with less severe depression treated with 1020 mg/day escitalopram (n = 341); (e) patients with more severe depression (baseline 530) treated with placebo (n = 332); (f) patients with more severe depression treated with 1020 mg/day escitalopram (n = 335). Prediction of response and remission The response and remission rates predicted by the ANCOVA and mixture model are shown in Table 4 with the observed rates. The mixture model performs consistently better than the ANCOVA in terms of the predicted rates being close to the observed rates (in all of the three criteria in each of the treatment groups and severity subgroups). Discussion We used a mixture model to identify two groups of patients: those who benefited from treatment and those who did not. In the total population we found that approximately 39% of patients benefited and 42% failed to benefit, regardless of treatment. We found that approximately 19% of the total would benefit from treatment with escitalopram but not with placebo. Consistent with earlier studies, we found that the percentage of patients who benefited specifically from treatment with the active antidepressant was higher among the subgroup with more severe depressive symptoms (23%) than it was for the subset with less severe symptoms (14%), corresponding to an NNT of 5 and 7 respectively. It has been argued that the large sample sizes available in meta-analyses that use individual patient data can show statistical significance even when the clinical difference between two treatment groups is small. 21 Mayer gives as an example a difference of 6.5 points in pain perception on a visual analogue scale of If another study had shown that patients could not discriminate a difference of less than 13 points on this scale, 505
6 Thase et al he argues that the difference, although statistically significant, would not be clinically important. In this case, the difference for a group of patients is compared with an individual patient, and assumes that all patients responded (i.e. a single distribution) and showed the same, relatively small, mean difference. The same argument was recently made following a meta-analysis of RCTs of antidepressants, which observed a mean difference of about 2 points v. placebo. 23 Our analyses using the mixture model indicate that a difference from placebo of 1 MADRS point corresponds to a difference of 5 percentage points in the proportion of benefiters, calculated as ( ) / 3.04, which is close to the value of 5.2, calculated as ( ) / 3.23, in the proportion of observed responder rates for all patients. The mixture model is a substantial improvement on the standard ANCOVA in fitting the empirical distribution of the at week 8. This is supported by the test criterion (Akaike s information criterion) and the graphical fit of the week 8 s, as well as the prediction of response and remission rates. Scrutinising the graphs, one may argue that the mixture model although vastly improving the ANCOVA fit still has problems capturing the floor effect, as there tends to be a piling up of patients with a very low score. However, we consider this as a minor misfit, and it should come as no surprise, as the mixture model comprises components of the normal distributions. With the risk of over-interpretation, the distribution of patients with less severe depression receiving placebo looks multimodal (i.e. more complex than bimodal). As this pattern is not present in any of the three other subgroups, we interpret this as artefactual. In any case the number of patients is probably too small to draw valid conclusions based on a more elaborate model, although one could argue that there might be three or more classes of outcomes. More classes would allow for a slightly better fit to the empirical distribution, but would require more data. Three classes might correspond clinically to remitters (patients with very low final scores), responders (patients who benefit but who have too many residual symptoms to be classified as well ) and non-responders (patients who obtain less than 20% improvement from baseline). An obvious next step would be to use the mixture model approach on longitudinal data from major depressive disorder trials, using a strategy similar to that of Uher et al. 24 The ANCOVA model systematically underestimated the proportion of responders and remitters, whereas the mixture model did not, and was closer to the observed rates in both treatment groups and in more and less severely affected patient subgroups. This might be because the mixture model is richer in terms of the number of parameters, but neither model was tailored specifically to capture the response and remission rates. Therefore, we believe that the superior prediction of the response/remission rates in the mixture model is because it better captures the distribution of s at week 8. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence (NICE) has concluded that although there is evidence suggesting a statistically significant difference favouring selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) over placebo on reducing depression symptoms as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD; N = 16, n = 2223; random effects standardised mean difference effect size 70.34, 95% CI to 70.22), the size of this mean difference is unlikely to be of clinical significance. 25 For patients with severe depression, they concluded that there is evidence to support a clinically significant difference favouring SSRIs over placebo on reducing depression symptoms as measured by the HRSD (N =4,n = 344; effect size 70.61, 95% CI to 70.4). Thus, a standardised mean difference effect size of 0.61 is considered clinically relevant, whereas 0.34 is not. The basis for this is that 0.5 is considered to be a medium effect size (Cohen), although it should be noted that Cohen also stated, The values chosen had no more reliable a basis than my own intuition. 26 Meta-analyses by Kirsch et al and Fournier et al, 2,4 using a mean drug v. placebo difference of 3 points on the HRSD as the criterion of clinical significance, likewise reached a similar conclusion, namely that antidepressants conveyed a significant advantage over inert placebos only for patients with relatively severe depressive episodes. Our findings indicate that what appears to be a modest effect in the grouped data on the boundary of clinical significance, as suggested above is actually a very large effect for a subset of patients who benefited more from escitalopram than from placebo treatment. This subset ranged from 14% to 23% for milder and more severe depression respectively, and in both cases the NNT values derived from these analyses were above accepted thresholds of clinical significance. Said another way, a relatively small mean difference in grouped data can obscure a large difference in benefit in a clinically meaningful proportion of patients. Limitations of the study Our analysis has several limitations. First, the model is based on data from patients with major depressive disorder who were recruited on the basis of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and who provided informed consent for participation in placebo-controlled RCTs. Second, our analysis was limited to studies of a single antidepressant, escitalopram, and was further limited to studies that permitted use of the maximum approved daily dose of that medication (20 mg). As escitalopram at this dose may be particularly effective, 27,28 it is possible that analyses of other antidepressants at other doses might have resulted in smaller estimates of drug v. placebo differences. Third, the model tested here assumed that the fourth cell in the theoretical 262 table (i.e. patients who did not respond to escitalopram but would have responded to placebo) was empty. It is likely that a small percentage of those who did not respond to escitalopram did so because they either were made worse by the medication or withdrew early because of intolerable side-effects; such patients might have responded had they been allocated to placebo. However, as attrition due to intolerable side-effects was relatively small in the escitalopram group (approximately 6.8% v. 2.2% in the placebo group) and the placebo response rate was 37%, it is plausible that the hypothetical proportion of benefiters in our data-set was underestimated by about 3%. Finally, it is worth remembering that Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. 29 Implications of the study These analyses indicate that small mean differences obscure large and clinically meaningful responses for a subgroup of people with depression. Specifically, the use of a mixture model indicates that the modest mean difference favouring the group receiving the active antidepressant is actually explained by a large and clinically relevant effect of 1418 points on the MADRS among the subgroup of depressed patients who specifically benefited from active treatment. This subgroup, in turn, represented between 14% (less severe) and 23% (more severe) of the patients who consented to double-blind therapy. Application of the mixture model to this pooled data-set gave a considerably better fit to the data than one in which all patients were assumed to benefit from treatment. 506
7 True effect of antidepressant therapy Michael E. Thase, MD, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Klaus G. Larsen, PhD, H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark; Sidney H. Kennedy, MD, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Correspondence: Dr Michael E. Thase, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Suite 689, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. First received 17 Feb 2011, final revision 23 Jun 2011, accepted 28 Jul 2011 Funding The original studies were sponsored by H. Lundbeck A/S or Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Acknowledgements We thank David Simpson, PhD, for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Dr Simpson is an employee of H. Lundbeck A/S. References 1 Moncrieff J, Kirsch I. Efficacy of antidepressants in adults. BMJ 2005; 331: Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 2008; 2: Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: Fournier JC, DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, Dimidjian S, Amsterdam JD, Shelton RC, et al. Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-analysis. JAMA 2010; 303: Lepola UM, Loft H, Reines EH. Escitalopram (1020 mg/day) is effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled study in depression in primary care. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2003; 18: Burke WJ, Gergel I, Bose A. Fixed-dose trial of the single isomer SSRI escitalopram in depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63: Rapaport MH, Bose A, Zheng H. Escitalopram continuation treatment prevents relapse of depressive episodes. J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 65: Ninan PT, Ventura D, Wang J. Escitalopram is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of severe depression. Poster presented at the Congress of the American Psychiatric Association, 1722 May 2003, San Francisco, California. ( file_id=scsr/scsr_sct-md-26_final.pdf). 9 Alexopoulos GS, Gordon J, Zhang D. A placebo-controlled trial of escitalopram and sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology 2004; 29 (suppl): S Khan A, Leventhal RM, Khan SR, Brown WA. Severity of depression and response to antidepressants and placebo: an analysis of the Food and Drug Administration database. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2002; 22: Khan A, Brodhead AE, Kolts RL, Brown WA. Severity of depressive symptoms and response to antidepressants and placebo in antidepressant trials. J Psychiatr Res 2005; 39: Bech P, Andersen H, Wade A. Effective dose of escitalopram in moderate versus severe DSM-IV major depression. Pharmacopsychiatry 2006; 39: Montgomery SA, Åsberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: Lavori PW. Clinical trials in psychiatry: should protocol deviation censor patient data? Neuropsychopharmacology 1992; 6: 3948; discussion Mallinckrodt CH, Clark WS, David SR. Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models. J Biopharm Stat 2001; 11: McLachlan GJ, Peel D. Finite Mixture Models. Wiley, Zhang B, Mitchell SL, Bambauer KZ, Jones R, Prigerson HG. Depressive symptom trajectories and associated risks among bereaved Alzheimer disease caregivers. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008; 16: Larsen K. Joint analysis of time-to-event and multiple binary indicators of latent classes. Biometrics 2004; 60: Akaike H. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Second International Symposium on Information Theory (eds BN Petrov, F Csaki): Akademiai Kiado, Kasper S, de Swart H, Andersen HF. Escitalopram in the treatment of depressed elderly patients. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2005; 13: Thase ME. Methodology to measure onset of action. J Clin Psychiatry 2001; 62 (suppl 15): Mayer D. Essential Evidence-based Medicine: 117. Cambridge University Press, Kirsch I, Moore TJ, Scoboria A, Nicholls SS. The emperor s new drugs: an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration. Prevent Treat 2002; 5: Uher R, Muthén B, Souery D, Mors O, Jaracz J, Placentino A, et al. Trajectories of change in depression severity during treatment with antidepressants. Psychol Med 2010; 40: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Depression: The Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults. National Clinical Practice Guideline CG90. NICE, 2009 ( CG90fullguideline.pdf). 26 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences: 532. Erlbaum, Kennedy SH, Andersen HF, Thase ME. Escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Geddes JR, Higgins JP, Churchill R, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373: Box GEP, Draper NR. Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces: 424. Wiley,
8 Assessing the 'true' effect of active antidepressant therapy v. placebo in major depressive disorder: use of a mixture model Michael E. Thase, Klaus G. Larsen and Sidney H. Kennedy BJP 2011, 199: Access the most recent version at DOI: /bjp.bp References Reprints/ permissions You can respond to this article at Downloaded from This article cites 22 articles, 2 of which you can access for free at: To obtain reprints or permission to reproduce material from this paper, please write to permissions@rcpsych.ac.uk /letters/submit/bjprcpsych;199/6/501 on December 7, 2015 Published by The Royal College of Psychiatrists To subscribe to The British Journal of Psychiatry go to:
Outline. Understanding Placebo Response in Psychiatry: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Definitions
Outline Understanding Placebo Response in Psychiatry: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Michael E. Thase, MD Professor of Psychiatry Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia
More informationDrug Surveillance 1.
22 * * 3 1 2 3. 4 Drug Surveillance 1. 6-9 2 3 DSM-IV Anxious depression 4 Drug Surveillance GPRD A. (TCA) (SSRI) (SNRI) 20-77 - SSRI 1999 SNRI 2000 5 56 80 SSRI 1 1999 2005 2 2005 92.4, 2010 1999 3 1
More informationAntidepressant Therapy 2016
Antidepressant Therapy 2016 Michael E. Thase, MD University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center University of Pittsburgh Medical Center thase@mail.med.upenn.edu
More informationPharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders where is
Pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders where is the room for improvement? David S Baldwin, Professor of Psychiatry BAP Masterclass, 15 th April 2011 dsb1@soton.ac.uk Declaration of interests (last
More informationEarly response as predictor of final remission in elderly depressed patients
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY Int J Geriatr Psychiatry (2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).2261 Early response as predictor of final remission in
More informationThe Efficacy of Paroxetine and Placebo in Treating Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Change on the Hamilton Rating Scales
The Efficacy of Paroxetine and Placebo in Treating Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Change on the Hamilton Rating Scales The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share
More informationHas the rising placebo response impacted antidepressant clinical trial outcome? Data from the US Food and Drug Administration
RESEARCH REPORT Has the rising placebo impacted antidepressant clinical trial outcome? Data from the US Food and Drug Administration 1987-2013 Arif Khan 1,2, Kaysee Fahl Mar 1, Jim Faucett 1, Shirin Khan
More informationTreating treatment resistant depression
Treating treatment resistant depression These slides are the intellectual property of Ian Anderson and must not be reproduced Ian Anderson Neuroscience and Psychiatry Unit University of Manchester and
More informationTechnical Appendix: Methods and Results of Growth Mixture Modelling
s1 Technical Appendix: Methods and Results of Growth Mixture Modelling (Supplement to: Trajectories of change in depression severity during treatment with antidepressants) Rudolf Uher, Bengt Muthén, Daniel
More informationAgomelatine versus placebo: A meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials
Agomelatine versus placebo: A meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials (Protocol for a systematic review, Ulm, January 17, 2011) Markus Kösters, Andrea Cipriani, Giuseppe Guaiana, Thomas Becker
More informationThe Pharmacological Management of Bipolar Disorder: An Update
Psychobiology Research Group The Pharmacological Management of Bipolar Disorder: An Update R. Hamish McAllister-Williams, MD, PhD, FRCPsych Reader in Clinical Psychopharmacology Newcastle University Hon.
More informationAussagekraft von Metaanalysen. Prof. Stefan Leucht Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der TU-München
Aussagekraft von Metaanalysen Prof. Stefan Leucht Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der TU-München Disclosures In the past 3 years: Consulting/advisory board honoraria from Alkermes, Bristol- Myers
More informationScottish Medicines Consortium
Scottish Medicines Consortium escitalopram, 5mg, 10mg, and 20mg tablets and 10mg/ml oral drops (Cipralex) No. (406/07) Lundbeck Ltd 7 September 2007 The Scottish Medicines Consortium has completed its
More information3. Depressione unipolare
3. Depressione unipolare Depressione unipolare con mancata risposta al trattamento con SSRI Question: Should switching from SSRIs to another antidepressant class vs switching within class (SSRIs) be used
More informationPharmacotherapy of Depression: State of the Art and Future Directions Michael E. Thase, MD
Pharmacotherapy of Depression: State of the Art and Future Directions Michael E. Thase, MD University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center University of Pittsburgh
More informationCognitive Impairment in Major Depressive Disorder as a Target for Drug Development
Cognitive Impairment in Major Depressive Disorder as a Target for Drug Development Maurizio Fava, MD Director Clinical Research Program Executive Vice Chair Department of Psychiatry Executive Director
More informationRESEARCH INTRODUCTION
Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials Dirk Eyding, project
More informationIs Depression management getting you down? G. Michael Allan Director Programs and Practice Support, CFPC Professor, Family Med, U of A
Is Depression management getting you down? G. Michael Allan Director Programs and Practice Support, CFPC Professor, Family Med, U of A Faculty/Presenter Disclosures Faculty: Mike Allan Salary: College
More informationJAM~ lama -- Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity: A Patient-Level Meta-an... Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity
lama -- Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity: A Patient-Level Meta-an... Page 1 of8 JAM~ Vol. 303 No.1, January 6, 2010 Review TABLE OF COllTEIlTS ) lama Online Features Antidepressant Drug
More informationSetting The setting was primary care. The economic study was carried out in the UK.
A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of escitalopram, generic citalopram and venlafaxine as a first-line treatment of major depressive disorder in the UK Wade A G, Toumi I, Hemels M E Record Status
More informationJanus Christian Jakobsen 1, Jane Lindschou Hansen 1, Signe Hellmuth 1, Anne Schou 1, Jesper Krogh 2,3, Christian Gluud 1. Version: 11/2-2013
The effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus no intervention, placebo, or active placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with
More informationDtients experience a chronic course, and 75% to 80% of patients
Kaymaz et al. Evidence That Patients With Single Versus Recurrent Depressive Episodes Are Differentially Sensitive to Treatment Discontinuation: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials
More informationEffectiveness of antidepressant medication: Implications of recent meta-analytic findings
Effectiveness of antidepressant 1 Effectiveness of antidepressant medication: Implications of recent meta-analytic findings Alan Scoboria, PhD, C.Psych University of Windsor A recent meta-analysis upon
More informationIs Depression management getting you down? G. Michael Allan Director Programs and Practice Support, CFPC Professor, Family Med, U of A
Is Depression management getting you down? G. Michael Allan Director Programs and Practice Support, CFPC Professor, Family Med, U of A Faculty/Presenter Disclosures Faculty: Mike Allan Salary: College
More informationPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY BULLETIN: Vol. 42 No. 2 5
DEMITRACK_MWM_549.QXP 7/14/9 1:46 PM Page 5 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Key Words: major depression, treatment resistance, transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS, antidepressant, efficacy, safety, randomized clinical
More informationClinical Perspective on Conducting Trials in Major Depressive Disorder. Justine M. Kent, M.D. Senior Director, Janssen R&D
Clinical Perspective on Conducting Trials in Major Depressive Disorder Justine M. Kent, M.D. Senior Director, Janssen R&D Utility of the partial response construct In general, published clinical guidelines
More informationEFFECTS OF PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS ON COGNITION
EFFECTS OF PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS ON COGNITION Richard Keefe, PhD Professor of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and Psychology & Neuroscience Duke University Medical Center Enabling Discovery, Development,
More informationLongitudinal analysis of the suicidal behaviour risk in short-term placebo-controlled studies of mirtazapine in major depressive disorder
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2010; 11: 36 44 ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Longitudinal analysis of the suicidal behaviour risk in short-term placebo-controlled studies of mirtazapine in major
More informationSudden Gains in Cognitive Therapy of Depression and Depression Relapse/Recurrence
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 75, No. 3, 404 408 0022-006X/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.3.404 Sudden Gains in
More informationANXIOUS DEPRESSION. Ned H. Kalin, MD University of Wisconsin Alan F. Schatzberg, MD Stanford University
ANXIOUS DEPRESSION Ned H. Kalin, MD University of Wisconsin Alan F. Schatzberg, MD Stanford University NED H. KALIN, MD Disclosures!! Research/Grants: None!! Speakers Bureau: None!! Consultant: None!!
More informationFurther data analysis topics
Further data analysis topics Jonathan Cook Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford EQUATOR OUCAGS training course 24th October 2015 Outline Ideal study Further topics Multiplicity
More informationSuicide Risk and Melancholic Features of Major Depressive Disorder: A Diagnostic Imperative
Suicide Risk and Melancholic Features of Major Depressive Disorder: A Diagnostic Imperative Robert I. Simon, M.D.* Suicide risk is increased in patients with Major Depressive Disorder with Melancholic
More informationCitalopram for major depressive disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published placebo-controlled trials
Open Access To cite: Apler A. Citalopram for major depressive disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published placebo-controlled trials. BMJ Open 2011;1: e000106. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2011-000106
More informationHow to treat depression with medication: Some rules of thumb
How to treat depression with medication: Some rules of thumb R. Hamish McAllister-Williams, MD, PhD, FRCPsych Reader in Clinical Psychopharmacology Newcastle University Hon. Consultant Psychiatrist Regional
More informationSetting The setting was primary and secondary care. The economic study was carried out in the UK.
A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of escitalopram versus citalopram in the treatment of severe depression in the United Kingdom Wade A G, Toumi I, Hemels M E H Record Status This is a critical abstract of
More informationRapid screening for perceived cognitive impairment in major depressive disorder
ANNALS OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY ANNALS OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY 2013;25(2):135-140 RESEARCH ARTICLE Rapid screening for perceived cognitive impairment in major depressive disorder Grant L. Iverson, PhD Raymond
More informationNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Published in final edited form as: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 June ; 69(6): 572 579. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2044. Who Benefits from Antidepressants?: Synthesis
More informationJanus Christian Jakobsen 1, Jane Lindschou Hansen 1, Signe Hellmuth 1, Anne Schou 1, Jesper Krogh 2,3, Christian Gluud 1. Version: 11/2-2013
The effects of dual-action antidepressants versus no intervention, placebo, or active placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analyses
More informationBipolar Depression Update 2015
Bipolar Depression Update 2015 Andrew A. Nierenberg, MD Thomas P. Hackett, MD, Chair in Psychiatry Director, Bipolar Clinic and Research Program Massachusetts General Hospital Professor of Psychiatry,
More informationStahl s Illustrated. Antidepressants. Stephen M. Stahl. University of California at San Diego. Nancy Muntner. Illustrations. Angela Felker.
Antidepressants Stephen M. Stahl University of California at San Diego Nancy Muntner Illustrations Angela Felker Editor ii PREFACE These books are designed to be fun. All concepts are illustrated by full-color
More informationTargets of Psychopharmacological Drug Action
Targets of Psychopharmacological Drug Action (page 33 in syllabus) Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD Adjunct Professor, Department of Psychiatry University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Honorary
More informationPapers. Abstract. Methods. Introduction. David Gunnell, Julia Saperia, Deborah Ashby
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicide in adults: meta-analysis of drug company data from placebo controlled, randomised controlled trials submitted to the MHRA s safety review David
More informationBipolar Depression Update 2016
Bipolar Depression Update 2016 Andrew A. Nierenberg, MD Thomas P. Hackett, MD, Endowed Chair in Psychiatry Director, Bipolar Clinic and Research Program Massachusetts General Hospital Professor of Psychiatry,
More informationTechnology appraisal guidance Published: 25 November 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta367
Vortioxetine for treating major depressive e episodes Technology appraisal guidance Published: 25 November 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta367 NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-conditions#notice-ofrights).
More informationCopyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
86 Original article Vilazodone in the treatment of major depressive disorder: efficacy across symptoms and severity of depression Arif Khan a,b, Angelo Sambunaris c, John Edwards d, Adam Ruth e and Donald
More informationDo the Right Thing: Good Clinical Practice for Clinical Research
Do the Right Thing: Good Clinical Practice for Clinical Research Andrew A. Nierenberg, MD Director, Bipolar Clinic and Research Program, Director, Training and Education, MGH Research Institute Massachusetts
More information1 1 Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder. Michael J. Ostacher, Jeffrey Huffman, Roy Perlis, and Andrew A.
1 1 Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder Michael J. Ostacher, Jeffrey Huffman, Roy Perlis, and Andrew A. Nierenberg Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University, Boston,
More informationHow can you improve. Talk to your patients about side effects and how long treatment will take. For personal use only
For mass reproduction, content licensing and permissions contact Dowden Health Media. Family Practice the journal of Charlotte Brown, PhD, Deena R. Battista, PhD Department of Psychiatry, of Medicine,
More informationWHAT S NEW. Vilazodone (Viibryd ) Vilazodone - Dosing ANTIDEPRESSANT UPDATE: What s New? The Cardiac Debate The Efficacy Debate?Pharmacogenomics?
ANTIDEPRESSANT UPDATE: What s New? The Cardiac Debate The Efficacy Debate?Pharmacogenomics? Rex S. Lott, Pharm.D., BCPP Professor, ISU College of Pharmacy Mental Health Clinical Pharmacist, Boise VAMC
More informationThe best drug treatment for psychotic depression: antidepressants, antipsychotics or both combined?
BJPsych Advances (2017), vol. 23, 3 8 doi: 10.1192/apt.23.1.3 The best drug treatment for psychotic depression: antidepressants, antipsychotics or both combined? COMMENTARY ON COCHRANE CORNER Katharine
More informationDRAFT SLIDES. Michael Huss Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
DRAFT SLIDES Separating efficacy and sedative effects of guanfacine extended release in children and adolescents with ADHD from four randomized, controlled, phase 3 clinical trials Michael Huss Child and
More informationAntidepressants (Tricyclic Antidepressants, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) in children 6-12 years of age with depressive episode/disorder
updated 2012 Antidepressants (Tricyclic Antidepressants, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) in children 6-12 years of age with depressive episode/disorder Q10: Are antidepressants (Tricyclic antidepressants
More informationSummary ID#7029. Clinical Study Summary: Study F1D-MC-HGKQ
CT Registry ID# 7029 Page 1 Summary ID#7029 Clinical Study Summary: Study F1D-MC-HGKQ Clinical Study Report: Versus Divalproex and Placebo in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Mania Associated with Bipolar
More informationREPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY
FERTILITY AND STERILITY VOL. 74, NO. 2, AUGUST 2000 Copyright 2000 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Published by Elsevier Science Inc. Printed on acid-free paper in U.S.A. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY
More informationThe scope of the problem. Literature review
Past Year: Novartis Ever: Alkermes, Amylin, Behringer- Ingelheim, Biovail, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Embryon, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Organon, Park-Davis, Pfizer, Sanolfi-Aventis, Smith-Kline Beacham,
More informationTRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE
The legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE Opinion 12 June 2013 SEROPLEX 5 mg, film-coated tablet B/14 (CIP: 3400936428973) B/28 (CIP: 3400935993519) SEROPLEX 10 mg,
More informationORIGINAL INVESTIGATION. Arif Khan & James Faucett & Walter A. Brown
Psychopharmacology (2014) 231:4301 4307 DOI 10.1007/s00213-014-3584-4 ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Magnitude of change with antidepressants and placebo in antidepressant clinical trials using structured, taped
More informationArif Khan 1,2, Shirin R. Khan 1, Robyn M. Leventhal 1 and Walter A. Brown 3
International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2001), 4, 113 118. Copyright 2001 CINP Symptom reduction and suicide risk in patients treated with placebo in antidepressant clinical trials: a replication
More informationThe following is a transcript from a web-based CME-certified multimedia activity. Interactivity applies only when viewing the activity online.
Presentation 1 The following is a transcript from a web-based CME-certified multimedia activity. Interactivity applies only when viewing the activity online. This activity is supported by an educational
More informationChanges in Weight During a 1-Year Trial of Fluoxetine
Changes in Weight During a 1-Year Trial of David Michelson, M.D., Jay D. Amsterdam, M.D., Fredrick M. Quitkin, M.D., Fredrick W. Reimherr, M.D., Jerrold F. Rosenbaum, M.D., John Zajecka, M.D., Karen L.
More informationWhat is indirect comparison?
...? series New title Statistics Supported by sanofi-aventis What is indirect comparison? Fujian Song BMed MMed PhD Reader in Research Synthesis, Faculty of Health, University of East Anglia Indirect comparison
More informationNumber needed to treat (NNT) is a measure of
For mass reproduction, content licensing and permissions contact Dowden Health Media. p sychiatry Can you interpret confidence intervals? It s not that difficult NNT medicine s secret stat offers infinite
More informationMissing data in clinical trials: making the best of what we haven t got.
Missing data in clinical trials: making the best of what we haven t got. Royal Statistical Society Professional Statisticians Forum Presentation by Michael O Kelly, Senior Statistical Director, IQVIA Copyright
More informationAtoms, represents a relatively common depressive subtype.
Bupropion Versus SSRIs in Anxious Depression Efficacy of Bupropion and the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder With High Levels of Anxiety (Anxious Depression):
More informationPRIMARY CARE PSYCHIATRY VOL. 9, NO. 1, 2003, 15 20
PRIMARY CARE PSYCHIATRY VOL. 9, NO. 1, 2003, 15 20 10.1185/135525703125002342 2003 LIBRAPHARM LIMITED Use of St John s wort (Hypericum perforatum L) in members of a depression self-help organisation: a
More informationMethods for Computing Missing Item Response in Psychometric Scale Construction
American Journal of Biostatistics Original Research Paper Methods for Computing Missing Item Response in Psychometric Scale Construction Ohidul Islam Siddiqui Institute of Statistical Research and Training
More informationTHANK YOU FOR JOINING ISMPP U TODAY! The program will begin promptly at 11:00 am eastern
THANK YOU FOR JOINING ISMPP U TODAY! The program will begin promptly at 11:00 am eastern ISMPP WOULD LIKE TO THANK.. the following Corporate Platinum Sponsors for their ongoing support of the society ISMPP
More informationStrategies for handling missing data in randomised trials
Strategies for handling missing data in randomised trials NIHR statistical meeting London, 13th February 2012 Ian White MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK Plan 1. Why do missing data matter? 2. Popular
More informationCopyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
26 Original article The efficacy of extended-release levomilnacipran in moderate to severe major depressive disorder: secondary and post-hoc analyses from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
More informationTechnology appraisal guidance Published: 8 November 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta487
Venetoclax for treating chronic lymphocytic leukaemia Technology appraisal guidance Published: 8 November 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta487 NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-conditions#notice-ofrights).
More informationNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 4-year surveillance (2017) Bipolar disorder (2014) NICE guideline CG185 Appendix B: stakeholder consultation comments table Consultation dates: 10 to 24
More informationORIGINAL ARTICLE OPEN. F Hieronymus 1, S Nilsson 2 and E Eriksson 1
OPEN Citation: Transl Psychiatry (2016) 6, e834; doi:10.1038/tp.2016.104 www.nature.com/tp ORIGINAL ARTICLE A mega-analysis of fixed-dose trials reveals dose-dependency and a rapid onset of action for
More informationEfficacy of Second Generation Antidepressants in Late-Life Depression: A Meta-Analysis of the Evidence
Efficacy of Second Generation Antidepressants in Late-Life Depression: A Meta-Analysis of the Evidence J. Craig Nelson, M.D., Kevin Delucchi, Ph.D., Lon S. Schneider, M.D. Objective: Second-generation
More informationSystematic Reviews. Simon Gates 8 March 2007
Systematic Reviews Simon Gates 8 March 2007 Contents Reviewing of research Why we need reviews Traditional narrative reviews Systematic reviews Components of systematic reviews Conclusions Key reference
More informationA Benefit-Risk Assessment of Agomelatine in the Treatment of Major Depression
REVIEW ARTICLE Drug Saf 2011; 34 (9): 709-731 0114-5916/11/0009-0709/$49.95/0 ª 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. A Benefit-Risk Assessment of Agomelatine in the Treatment of Major Depression
More informationTHINC-it: what is it? John Harrison Alzheimer Center, VU University Medical Center, West London Mental Health Trust, Metis Cognition Ltd
THINC-it: what is it? John Harrison Alzheimer Center, VU University Medical Center, West London Mental Health Trust, Metis Cognition Ltd Disclosures Associate Professor in the Alzheimer Center at the VU
More informationSupplementary Online Content
Supplementary Online Content Rollman BL, Herbeck Belnap B, Abebe KZ, et al. Effectiveness of online collaborative care for treating mood and anxiety disorders in primary care: a randomized clinical trial.
More informationDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences. University of Texas Medical Branch
Depression in Childhood: Advances and Controversies in Treatment Karen Dineen Wagner, MD, PhD Marie B. Gale Centennial Professor & Vice Chair Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences Director, Division
More informationBEST PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF PAIN SCALE PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN CLINICAL TRIALS
BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF PAIN SCALE PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN CLINICAL TRIALS Nan Shao, Ph.D. Director, Biostatistics Premier Research Group, Limited and Mark Jaros, Ph.D. Senior
More informationKenneth Gordon, 1 Kim A. Papp, 2 Kara Creamer Rice, 3 Mona Trivedi, 3 David H. Collier, 3 Greg Kricorian 3
American Academy of Dermatology 75 th Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL; March 3 7, 2017 Poster 4563 Novel Evaluation of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) Data: Distribution of PASI Improvements in a
More informationAdherence to therapy. Kamlesh Khunti University of Leicester, UK. William Polonsky University of California San Diego, USA
Adherence to therapy Kamlesh Khunti University of Leicester, UK William Polonsky University of California San Diego, USA 1 Dualities of interest Kamlesh Khunti: Honoraria for speaking, advising or research
More informationAge / Sex: Presenting Problem:
William E. Bunney, Jr., MD, and Ned H. Kalin, MD Chart Review: Anxious Depression PATIENT INFO 17 / Female Age / Sex: Presenting Problem: DA is 17 y/o women who presented with intermittent symptoms of
More informationChoice of axis, tests for funnel plot asymmetry, and methods to adjust for publication bias
Technical appendix Choice of axis, tests for funnel plot asymmetry, and methods to adjust for publication bias Choice of axis in funnel plots Funnel plots were first used in educational research and psychology,
More informationEthical Human Psychology and Psychiatry
With the Compliments of Springer Publishing Company, LLC Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry An International Journal of Critical Inquiry Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 13, Number
More informationDose response relationship of new generation antidepressants: Protocol for a systematic review and dose response meta analysis
Dose response relationship of new generation antidepressants: Protocol for a systematic review and dose response meta analysis REVIEW QUESTION What is the dose-response relationship for selective serotonin
More informationThe cost-benefit of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild to moderate dementia: a willingness-topay
The cost-benefit of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild to moderate dementia: a willingness-topay approach Wu G, Lanctot K L, Herrmann N, Moosa S, Oh P I Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic
More informationTechnical Specifications
Technical Specifications In order to provide summary information across a set of exercises, all tests must employ some form of scoring models. The most familiar of these scoring models is the one typically
More informationThe Impact of Continuity Violation on ANOVA and Alternative Methods
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods Volume 12 Issue 2 Article 6 11-1-2013 The Impact of Continuity Violation on ANOVA and Alternative Methods Björn Lantz Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
More informationStudy No.: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centres: Indication: Treatment: Objectives: Primary Outcome/Efficacy Variable:
The study listed may include approved and non-approved uses, formulations or treatment regimens. The results reported in any single study may not reflect the overall results obtained on studies of a product.
More informationRegression Discontinuity Analysis
Regression Discontinuity Analysis A researcher wants to determine whether tutoring underachieving middle school students improves their math grades. Another wonders whether providing financial aid to low-income
More informationJune 2015 MRC2.CORP.D.00030
This program is paid for by Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Lundbeck, LLC. The speaker is a paid contractor of Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. June 2015 MRC2.CORP.D.00030 advice or professional
More informationThe QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews
The QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews David Moher 1, Alessandro Liberati 2, Douglas G Altman 3, Jennifer Tetzlaff 1 for the QUOROM Group
More informationMood and Anxiety Disorders: The Complexities of Integrating Syndromes
Mood and Anxiety Disorders: The Complexities of Integrating Syndromes Ned Kalin, MD University of Wisconsin School of Medicine Martin B. Keller, MD Brown Medical School David R. Rubinow, MD University
More informationPage 1 of 5. Policies Repository. Policy. Policy Description. Policy Guideline Inclusion
Page 1 of 5 Policies Repository Policy Title Policy Number Duloxetine (Cymbalta ) FS.CLIN.48 Application of Pharmacy Policy is determined by benefits and contracts. Benefits may vary based on product line,
More informationUPDATE April 5, 2006 BRIEFING DOCUMENT. Paroxetine Adult Suicidality Analysis: Major Depressive Disorder and Non- Major Depressive Disorder
UPDATE April 5, 2006 BRIEFING DOCUMENT Paroxetine Adult Suicidality Analysis: Major Depressive Disorder and Non- Major Depressive Disorder 1. Introduction Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)
More informationCOMMITTEE FOR PROPRIETARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (CPMP) POINTS TO CONSIDER ON MISSING DATA
The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use London, 15 November 2001 CPMP/EWP/1776/99 COMMITTEE FOR PROPRIETARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (CPMP) POINTS TO
More informationTreatment Resistant Depression: A Systematic Approach to Management
Treatment Resistant Depression: A Systematic Approach to Management Michael E. Thase, M.D. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center University of Pittsburgh
More informationAppendix C - Summary form
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Appendix C - Summary form Single Techn Appraisal (STA) Agomelatine for the treatment of major depressive episodes Response to consultee and commentator
More informationMeta-Analysis. Zifei Liu. Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Meta-Analysis Zifei Liu What is a meta-analysis; why perform a metaanalysis? How a meta-analysis work some basic concepts and principles Steps of Meta-analysis Cautions on meta-analysis 2 What is Meta-analysis
More informationMajor depression is the fourth
Priority Updates from the Research Literature from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network Initiating antidepressant therapy? Try these 2 drugs first For most patients, sertraline and escitalopram are
More information